# A Question for Roman Catholics **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 9, 2011, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943 "2011-01-09T02:32:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2011, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/81 "2011-01-14T21:46:43Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I assume that’s supposed to be an analogy to World War I, but I don’t follow. It’s kind of like a duck wearing a hat. Exactly. Just like Howard the Duck, who does wear a hat, there’s an incongruity present. Given the metaphor of anthropomorphic animals, Donald Duck, Tom and Jerry, Wile E Coyote, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Puinky and the Brain, etc., are able to make cogent comments about the human condition. Likewise, superhero comics in which people are drawn quasi-realistically but with unusual powers are a species of wish-fulfillment fantasy. But mix the two, put an anthropomorphic duck wearing a hat and smoking a cigar in a world in which the other characters are realisticaqlly drawn human beings, and you achieve humor through incongruity. **Bricker** presented generally accurate facts (there are a couple I would take issue with, but it would be unnecessary nitpickery to detail them) in support of his response to the question on the Cathilic view of Anglican orders. (And as he notes, he was presenting the Catholic viewpoint, duly caveatted.) However, the selection of facts and how they were presented were chosen to make the point he set out to make, and not the opposite one of the importance of Anglican orders to the internal structure and self-perception of the Anglican churches. I believe the typical mode of describing a church in which the principal worship services are celebrations of the holy Eucharist, which places a supernal value on the sacraments and on apostolic succession and the historic episcopate, which makes private confession available to any member desiring it, which recognizes the saints and many of whose members seek their intercession, etc., would more likely be “catholic” than “protestant”. But **Bricker** ’s presentation (understandably) focuses on the historical accidents which led his church to classify Anglicanism with the Southern Baptists and the Universalists in the catch-all phrase “Protestant” – much as the amoeba and the sea squirt are lumped together as “invertebrates.” My Canada/Bulgaria metaphor was intended to convey the same incongruity – in point of fact, there is a sequential progression of events from Franz Ferdinand’s assassination (and I picked Hungary rather than Austria to further emphasize the incongruity) to Canada and Bulgaria declaring war on each other. So the statement is in fact factually true – but to make sense requires to be seen in the context of international policy between the British Crown realms, international power politics, ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, etc., that gave rise to the events of 1914. And to argue against **Bricker** ’s presentation would require even more discussion of matters not of interest to Dopers in general than even this explanation. Hence I conceded that he had presented facts, generally accurately, in support of his church’s stance, and simply caveatted that stance as far from the only way to see things. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2011, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/82 "2011-01-15T09:04:56Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > One is that some denominations baptize only adults. Here, adult means a person who is over the age of reason or is capable of expressing an intelligent understanding of the basics of what it means to be a Christian and indicating a desire for baptism, so in this case, an “adult” could be 12 years old. Churches that only baptize adults may not recognize infant baptism, considering it void, and require that the person be baptized. An adult baptism performed by a church that also baptizes infants is probably ok with them. There may be churches that recognize infant baptism but do not perform it themselves. I was baptised as a Roman Catholic at the age of five. My parents wanted to wait until I could agree to the baptism before having it performed. Of course, at that age I was still too young to do anything else than agree to what my parents suggested, especially in matters of religion. Today, not believing in God, I do not consider myself a Catholic or even a Christian. If I ever wanted to convert to a Christian church that does not recognize “infant baptism”, would I need to be rebaptised? I wasn’t an infant when the sacrament was performed. But I certainly wasn’t an adult either. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2011, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/83 "2011-01-15T11:25:21Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > I was baptised as a Roman Catholic at the age of five. My parents wanted to wait until I could agree to the baptism before having it performed. Of course, at that age I was still too young to do anything else than agree to what my parents suggested, especially in matters of religion. Today, not believing in God, I do not consider myself a Catholic or even a Christian. > > If I ever wanted to convert to a Christian church that does not recognize “infant baptism”, would I need to be rebaptised? I wasn’t an infant when the sacrament was performed. But I certainly wasn’t an adult either. Most of them also don’t recognize “sprinkle” baptisms, the kind most often performed by the Catholic Church, citing that the original Greek word means something about submersion. So, yes, you would probably have to be rebaptized. If you were baptized by submersion, then, at the churches I’ve attended, you would be encouraged to get baptized again as an “outward indication of an internal faith”, but it wouldn’t be considered a theological mark against you. However, there are some churches that require you to be baptized by someone in their denomination in order to even be a member. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/84 "2011-01-15T20:22:12Z")
**Polycarp** , thank you for elaborating. And now, if I may… Those Roamin’ Catholics - they’re everywhere. ---
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/85 "2011-02-12T01:50:40Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > **Bricker** is of course a devout Catholic, and explaining this from the Catholic perspective. To avoid a flame war in GQ, I’ll simply say to take the above, oher than as the response for the question asked, about the need for reordination of Anglican bishops and priests becoming Catholic, with a ;arge grain of salt.. Surely the Roman Catholic perspective as to the validity or otherwise of Anglican ordination is the **only** relevant perspective for those Anglican priests joining the RCC? Anyway, they have indeed been required to have a specifically RC ordination, as implied [here](http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/01/11/bishops-conference-issues-guide-to-the-ordinariate/), for example, and as mentioned in various news articles in the usual places. A bit of Google-foo found the _[Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html)_, which includes the following provisions: > [@](#): > > VI. § 1. Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfil the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement In June are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1. > > § 2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See. > > § 3. Incardination of clerics will be regulated according to the norms of canon law. > > … ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/86 "2011-02-12T15:09:16Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > The old folks in my family (Irish Catholic) used to spin a lot of yarns based upon the urgency of priests running to get to a person before they died, or a mid-wife trying to get a still-born child to “take three breaths” so he/she could be baptized. The basis of all of these stories was the absolute nature of death, and the definite implication of it being “too late.” > > This guy sounds like he was completely out of line on all counts. Reminds me of the bloke who went to an R.C. priest to ask him to baptise his dog. “I’ve asked the Protestants, the Russian Orthodox, the Coptics and they all refused me”. “Well I’m very sorry my son but we don’t…” “And I love my dog and I’m going to donate five million dollars to the church that…” “Ah he’s a good CATHOLIC dog, well bring him in then” An aside, the man in the O.P. It wasn’t Mel Gibson was it ? ---
**Author:** ![Lissla\_Lissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lissla\_Lissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissla_Lissar)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943/87 "2011-02-13T20:29:48Z")
From the link, it says Johna Broadhurst is married. That means he can be a priest but not a bishop in the RCC. Bishops are all celibate. I think this is true in the Orthodox church as well- priests may be married but bishops are selected from amongst the celibate clergy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-roman-catholics/566943.md?page=4)